All that's needed is to add a urea tank; it'll cost VW thousands per car, but it will maintain the mpg while achieving the emissions reductions required. As far as fair market value, you would base the value on an equivalent non-VW, as opposed to market value for a non-compliant VW.
Regarding the issue of defrauding customers, a full refund is a bit ridiculous, as these cars are years old. Second, people aren't buying them because they're advertised as clean. They're buying them for the high mpg, and assume that they meet the required emissions standards. Customers who put an emphasis on clean emissions would put all electric or hybrid vehicles well ahead of a VW diesel. Maybe VW should be forced to buy back customer's vehicles at fair market value or install the proper tech to clean up the emissions for those that want to keep their VW diesel.
Settled science: Energy is supplied to our planet from the sun. The entire planet loses energy to space. Our atmosphere dictates the rate at which this energy is lost.
Not Settled Science: What is the rate at which this energy is lost, and what is the quantitative change to this rate when CO2 concentration is increased or decreased.
Not Settled Science: What are all the effects, good and bad, that an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere will have.
Not Settled Science: Increased CO2 and a warmer atmosphere are a bad thing and should be prevented.
Facebook is going to die just like MySpace did.
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
As the article states, teens don't use facebook all that much. I have 4 teenagers in my house, and they've all quit using it for Instagram, Tumbler, and Twitter. I think 2017 might be a bit premature, but I could certainly see it in steady decline by 2020. Their growth rate is getting close to zero, so I'd say they're about to hit their peak this year.
From the BULLSHIT article you linked:
"This paper couples numerical simulation of time- and space-dependent weather with simulation of time-dependent power demand, storage, and demand response"
Yes, that's right, it's a peer reviewed article that is based entirely on SIMULATIONS, and not ACTUAL DATA. I'm certainly not going to pay any money to read the entire article.
Sorry, I'm not going to trust a Renewable Energy Shill as a source. Here's some real numbers...
Levelized Cost of Electricity for new generation sources entering service in 2020:
Advanced Nuclear: $95.2/MWh
Solar PV: $125.3/MWh
Solar Thermal: $239.7/MWh
source: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/...
And this is ONLY cost, it doesn't factor in that Solar is restricted to sunlight hours, is variable and unpredictable, and therefore it's not a reliable source.
What does that even mean, the plans for each country are independent? That is completely irrelevant to the example he laid out. In order for wind turbines to generate electricity, there needs to be wind. If there isn't any wind, they still need a source to generate the required electricity. Instead of posting more propaganda videos full of non-answers to this question, please answer it yourself. How does Europe, for example, produce the required electricity needed when there isn't any wind blowing?
No, I'm not mistaken. It's common knowledge that solar is much more expensive than nuclear. You can refer to Wikipedia or the EIA for specific numbers. Now go away troll.
It is also common knowledge that solar is even more expensive. It is also common knowledge that the wind is not reliable, and therefore not a good source of RELIABLE energy production. Now please stop trolling/. Most of us are smart enough to know the difference between facts and propaganda. You, however, are not.
You're kidding me...you're linking to a bunch of renewable energy propaganda videos? I should believe the wind won't stop blowing because you linked to a speech by Alec Baldwin????? Sorry Mr. Propaganda, but I live in Ontario, where we've jumped over the cliff of renewables. We have a large pile of windmills now installed, and when they aren't spinning, we're burning gas to provide electricity. Oh, and when they are spinning, we're still burning gas because they can't shut down and reboot the gas fired generators fast enough to prevent the grid from collapsing. And when they're spinning too fast and producing too much electricity, We have to pay Michigan to take our surplus or risk the grid from collapsing. Our hydro rates are now double what they were 10 years ago, and still going up. The disaster of a government is now trying to sell off the hydro company to raise money and avoid the blame when the rates go up yet again this year. Sorry, but you're way out to lunch on this subject. Windmills were abandoned a century ago as a source of power because it's just not reliable enough. Unless there's a dramatic reduction of the earth's population, Nuclear is the only way to provide reliable, inexpensive energy for all our needs.
Oh, so now we have "peak uranium" being offered as a potential crisis? They said the same thing about oil 50 years ago, and here we are, still going strong with a glut of oil.
Stop with your propaganda please. Here's the facts on Uranium as a power source:
" Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource.[1][3] However, the current reserves of uranium have the potential (assuming breeder reactor technology) to provide power for humanity for billions of years, until the death of our sun, so nuclear power can be termed sustainable energy.[4] "
- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
LMAO, what a joke! Over 50% of Germany's power is supposed to come from wind? What happens when the wind isn't blowing for a week? Everyone just stops using electricity? Or does the plan have fossil fuel backup generators? Here's a nice graphic summary of wind power generation in Europe: http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-c...
Note how in a two month period, there are more days that produced less than 15,000MW than there are days that produced over 30,000MW. That's a HUGE variance in output, and you're going to need backup generation online and running to keep the power grid stable.
What total nonsense. Please define efficient versus inefficient regarding nuclear fission. And while you're at it, let's see some data backing up your claim that nuclear fission does not work as a feasible energy resource. There's plenty of data available showing it's producing plenty of energy.
Maybe you haven't been following the news lately, but the Republicans won't need to repeal it, as it's imploding all on it's own.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....
Following the 2008 Senate elections, the Democrats had 57 seats, the Republicans 41. There were 2 independents. That means at most he would have had to convince 3 Republicans. If he got the 2 independents, he would've only needed 1.
Slashdot Mirror
All that's needed is to add a urea tank; it'll cost VW thousands per car, but it will maintain the mpg while achieving the emissions reductions required. As far as fair market value, you would base the value on an equivalent non-VW, as opposed to market value for a non-compliant VW.
Regarding the issue of defrauding customers, a full refund is a bit ridiculous, as these cars are years old. Second, people aren't buying them because they're advertised as clean. They're buying them for the high mpg, and assume that they meet the required emissions standards. Customers who put an emphasis on clean emissions would put all electric or hybrid vehicles well ahead of a VW diesel. Maybe VW should be forced to buy back customer's vehicles at fair market value or install the proper tech to clean up the emissions for those that want to keep their VW diesel.
All they needed was a proper backup and they could've just restored all the encrypted files without paying a cent.
Settled science: Energy is supplied to our planet from the sun. The entire planet loses energy to space. Our atmosphere dictates the rate at which this energy is lost.
Not Settled Science: What is the rate at which this energy is lost, and what is the quantitative change to this rate when CO2 concentration is increased or decreased.
Not Settled Science: What are all the effects, good and bad, that an increase of CO2 in our atmosphere will have.
Not Settled Science: Increased CO2 and a warmer atmosphere are a bad thing and should be prevented.
Nope, speed limits vary from state to state, with some states having speed limits as high as 75mph.
What the hell are you driving, the Millenium Falcon?
That's it exactly! Had they executed their turn 13.7 microseconds earlier as planned, they would've avoided Iranian waters and been left alone.
Facebook is going to die just like MySpace did. http://motherboard.vice.com/re... As the article states, teens don't use facebook all that much. I have 4 teenagers in my house, and they've all quit using it for Instagram, Tumbler, and Twitter. I think 2017 might be a bit premature, but I could certainly see it in steady decline by 2020. Their growth rate is getting close to zero, so I'd say they're about to hit their peak this year.
From the BULLSHIT article you linked: "This paper couples numerical simulation of time- and space-dependent weather with simulation of time-dependent power demand, storage, and demand response" Yes, that's right, it's a peer reviewed article that is based entirely on SIMULATIONS, and not ACTUAL DATA. I'm certainly not going to pay any money to read the entire article.
You've been posting crap links from renewable shills all day, and now you complain about someone's sources?
Sorry, I'm not going to trust a Renewable Energy Shill as a source. Here's some real numbers... Levelized Cost of Electricity for new generation sources entering service in 2020: Advanced Nuclear: $95.2/MWh Solar PV: $125.3/MWh Solar Thermal: $239.7/MWh source: https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/... And this is ONLY cost, it doesn't factor in that Solar is restricted to sunlight hours, is variable and unpredictable, and therefore it's not a reliable source.
How stupid are you? Nuclear doesn't need to be flexible, you turn it on, and you leave it on, and you get consistent, reliable, predictable power.
What does that even mean, the plans for each country are independent? That is completely irrelevant to the example he laid out. In order for wind turbines to generate electricity, there needs to be wind. If there isn't any wind, they still need a source to generate the required electricity. Instead of posting more propaganda videos full of non-answers to this question, please answer it yourself. How does Europe, for example, produce the required electricity needed when there isn't any wind blowing?
No, I'm not mistaken. It's common knowledge that solar is much more expensive than nuclear. You can refer to Wikipedia or the EIA for specific numbers. Now go away troll.
It is also common knowledge that solar is even more expensive. It is also common knowledge that the wind is not reliable, and therefore not a good source of RELIABLE energy production. Now please stop trolling /. Most of us are smart enough to know the difference between facts and propaganda. You, however, are not.
Oh, thanks for yet another propaganda video without any factual evidence. What kind of glue were they sniffing in Paris?
And at 100% nuclear, the problem of RE propaganda not living up to real world performance goes away too.
You're kidding me...you're linking to a bunch of renewable energy propaganda videos? I should believe the wind won't stop blowing because you linked to a speech by Alec Baldwin????? Sorry Mr. Propaganda, but I live in Ontario, where we've jumped over the cliff of renewables. We have a large pile of windmills now installed, and when they aren't spinning, we're burning gas to provide electricity. Oh, and when they are spinning, we're still burning gas because they can't shut down and reboot the gas fired generators fast enough to prevent the grid from collapsing. And when they're spinning too fast and producing too much electricity, We have to pay Michigan to take our surplus or risk the grid from collapsing. Our hydro rates are now double what they were 10 years ago, and still going up. The disaster of a government is now trying to sell off the hydro company to raise money and avoid the blame when the rates go up yet again this year. Sorry, but you're way out to lunch on this subject. Windmills were abandoned a century ago as a source of power because it's just not reliable enough. Unless there's a dramatic reduction of the earth's population, Nuclear is the only way to provide reliable, inexpensive energy for all our needs.
Oh, so now we have "peak uranium" being offered as a potential crisis? They said the same thing about oil 50 years ago, and here we are, still going strong with a glut of oil. Stop with your propaganda please. Here's the facts on Uranium as a power source: " Uranium-235 is a finite non-renewable resource.[1][3] However, the current reserves of uranium have the potential (assuming breeder reactor technology) to provide power for humanity for billions of years, until the death of our sun, so nuclear power can be termed sustainable energy.[4] " - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
LMAO, what a joke! Over 50% of Germany's power is supposed to come from wind? What happens when the wind isn't blowing for a week? Everyone just stops using electricity? Or does the plan have fossil fuel backup generators? Here's a nice graphic summary of wind power generation in Europe: http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-c... Note how in a two month period, there are more days that produced less than 15,000MW than there are days that produced over 30,000MW. That's a HUGE variance in output, and you're going to need backup generation online and running to keep the power grid stable.
What total nonsense. Please define efficient versus inefficient regarding nuclear fission. And while you're at it, let's see some data backing up your claim that nuclear fission does not work as a feasible energy resource. There's plenty of data available showing it's producing plenty of energy.
Sure, every calorie is the same, but not every source of calories is the same. 1lb of potatoes is 350 calories. 1lb of sugar is 1750 calories.
Maybe you haven't been following the news lately, but the Republicans won't need to repeal it, as it's imploding all on it's own. http://www.washingtonexaminer....
Propaganda versus actual evidence... http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix... http://www.parikiaki.com/wp-co... http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content... http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i... http://www2.pictures.zimbio.co...
Following the 2008 Senate elections, the Democrats had 57 seats, the Republicans 41. There were 2 independents. That means at most he would have had to convince 3 Republicans. If he got the 2 independents, he would've only needed 1.